[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Czerkas and SVPCA



Just back from SVPCA and with a message from pterosaur supremo, Dr. Dino
Frey.
He was exceedingly interested in the current discussion about the
Czerkas volume and the fact that he has been credited as 'peer reviewer'
of the papers.
In fact, he was rather extremely annoyed.
Reason is that the papers were sent to him to 'see' and no mention
whatsoever was made about peer reviewing. However, as he was asked his
opinion he gave it: He wrote back praising the enormous quality of the
specimens and praising the artwork but at the same time considered that
the accompanying text was unworthy of the fossils at a technical level
(that is, it didn't follow rigorous rules that  reflected or analyzed
what the specimens really were and expressed only personal opinions).
He  told me he considered it had so many faults that he criss-crossed in
blue all the texts and sent them back with a simple answer: 'not worth
publishing; need a complete review'.
He got back a polite 'thank you' and didn't hear anything anymore.
It seems that 'peer reviewing' can be slightly misleading: In this case,
it doesn't seem to mean any kind of technical 'approval'.  So the fact
that Dino Frey 'saw' the papers doesn't mean he considered the
publishable.
For time reasons he couldn't elaborate more (but promised to send me
details later).
In any case he asked me to pass this message.
Curiously enough, I got a similar reaction from Henry Gee. Some of the
papers in the Czerkas volume were rejected by Nature. The rejection was
for exactly the same reasons given by Dino Frey.

Unfortunately I haven't seen the volume, so I have no opinion. I'm just
passing the message.

Have to sleep now.



Luis Rey.
Visit my website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey